Defining a Backstab

Hey everyone, if you've ever seen me, or played with me, you know i HATE backstabbing. I have a bio on some of my worlds, called Jett's code of BD, with a list of my personal, rules. #2 is dont back stab. and well, it seems that back stabbing is the most commonly used reason for a war nowadays, and its kind ridiculous... So, heres how i would define a back stab:

First off, theres a few different kind of back stabs, the first is:Alliance to Alliance backstabbing- When one alliance breaks a truce, or agreement such as "We stay out of Asia, you stay out of Africa" and the alliance who must stay out of Africa, moves in taking crystals and conquers. Another example is when the alliance that you have an alliance or a NAP makes an attack on a colony or OP. Or when they accidently attack someone you said not to attack on the BCs.

Now, theres also a few ways to deal with this, war is NOT the answer every time. first off, if all they do is make ONE OP in your territory, start by asking them to raze it. if they refuse, you can take it. but dont just go straight in with your armies. If all they did was take one OP from your alliance, then ask to retake the OP. im sure it was just a misunderstanding. Now, when you put up a BC saying "Dont attack so and so, along with his OP here ___" if either of those get attacked, dont just declare war. Many alliance leaders are to busy to pay attention to the BCs, and therefore do not see your message saying "Dont attack" it is your duty, to make sure all allied alliances near either the player, or the OP, know not to attack it. message them. BCs dont always work, and therefore it is your fault, not theirs, and if it gets attacked, you have no1 to blame but yourself.

Sub to alliance-Alright guys, I've had this happen recently, i lead a sub for a friend. I had previously marked another alliance friendly. When my main, who had not been in the deal, declared war on the other alliance, if the main requests the subs help, the sub HAS to comply. and any friendships with the other alliance are voided. A sub IS allowed to make its own friends/enemies but should they interfere with the main alliance, the sub will have to change their standings, and therefore it is NOT a backstab.

Member to Alliance-Alright, if you have a member, who leaves your alliance and joins a different alliance, marked blue/neutral it is not a backstab. should he join a different alliance marked red, unless you are currently at war with them, or will be going to war, it is NOT a back stab. If you leave your alliance and join a different alliance, then proceed to give them information on your old alliance, and then attack the old alliance, it IS a back stab. Should you leave your alliance during a war, it is NOT a back stab. its merely cowardice, and therefore a whole different issue. Should you leave your alliance and start attacking them, then it is a back stab. that should be obvious.

(also, keep in mind. if you are going to be leaving, its common courtesy to send a mass first, saying goodbye instead of just disappearing)

Alliance to Member-Alright, this is different from Member to Alliance. When an Alliance kicks a member, without just cause (inactivity, refusal to follow orders, enemy spy, etc) and conquers them. it IS a back stab by the alliance, to the kicked member. Should the alliance give him a warning, then kick him for his ignorance of the warning, and conquering him, it is NOT a back stab. its the kicked player's fault. An alliance that is nice, in even the slightest, when kicking a member, would mass out NOT to attack the member, and allow him to join some1 else peacefully. even an enemy, your at war with. Your the one who sent them away, its your fault if they join the enemy and tell them your secrets.

Hope this cleared up some BC battles over who back stabbed, and all that. Please, if i did not cover a big topic about back stabbing, comment below, and i'll add it in.

I suppose this is a decent prospective definition of stabbing one in the back.

The only issue with this is that backstabbing is very much a dynamic event, and im not sure if I have ever really known everyone to agree on what defines stabbing in the back 100% of the time. Devious politics are just that. Devious, and deception in itself is a valid tactic in warfare.

You did lay out a few "how-to's" I suppose, but it reads more like an opinionated definition of a backstab.

Hey everyone, if you've ever seen me, or played with me, you know i HATE backstabbing. I have a bio on some of my worlds, called Jett's code of BD, with a list of my personal, rules. #2 is dont back stab. and well, it seems that back stabbing is the most commonly used reason for a war nowadays, and its kind ridiculous... So, heres how i would define a back stab:

First off, theres a few different kind of back stabs, the first is:Alliance to Alliance backstabbing- When one alliance breaks a truce, or agreement such as "We stay out of Asia, you stay out of Africa" and the alliance who must stay out of Africa, moves in taking crystals and conquers. Another example is when the alliance that you have an alliance or a NAP makes an attack on a colony or OP. Or when they accidently attack someone you said not to attack on the BCs.

Now, theres also a few ways to deal with this, war is NOT the answer every time. first off, if all they do is make ONE OP in your territory, start by asking them to raze it. if they refuse, you can take it. but dont just go straight in with your armies. If all they did was take one OP from your alliance, then ask to retake the OP. im sure it was just a misunderstanding. Now, when you put up a BC saying "Dont attack so and so, along with his OP here ___" if either of those get attacked, dont just declare war. Many alliance leaders are to busy to pay attention to the BCs, and therefore do not see your message saying "Dont attack" it is your duty, to make sure all allied alliances near either the player, or the OP, know not to attack it. message them. BCs dont always work, and therefore it is your fault, not theirs, and if it gets attacked, you have no1 to blame but yourself.

Sub to alliance-Alright guys, I've had this happen recently, i lead a sub for a friend. I had previously marked another alliance friendly. When my main, who had not been in the deal, declared war on the other alliance, if the main requests the subs help, the sub HAS to comply. and any friendships with the other alliance are voided. A sub IS allowed to make its own friends/enemies but should they interfere with the main alliance, the sub will have to change their standings, and therefore it is NOT a backstab.

Member to Alliance-Alright, if you have a member, who leaves your alliance and joins a different alliance, marked blue/neutral it is not a backstab. should he join a different alliance marked red, unless you are currently at war with them, or will be going to war, it is NOT a back stab. If you leave your alliance and join a different alliance, then proceed to give them information on your old alliance, and then attack the old alliance, it IS a back stab. Should you leave your alliance during a war, it is NOT a back stab. its merely cowardice, and therefore a whole different issue. Should you leave your alliance and start attacking them, then it is a back stab. that should be obvious.

(also, keep in mind. if you are going to be leaving, its common courtesy to send a mass first, saying goodbye instead of just disappearing)

Alliance to Member-Alright, this is different from Member to Alliance. When an Alliance kicks a member, without just cause (inactivity, refusal to follow orders, enemy spy, etc) and conquers them. it IS a back stab by the alliance, to the kicked member. Should the alliance give him a warning, then kick him for his ignorance of the warning, and conquering him, it is NOT a back stab. its the kicked player's fault. An alliance that is nice, in even the slightest, when kicking a member, would mass out NOT to attack the member, and allow him to join some1 else peacefully. even an enemy, your at war with. Your the one who sent them away, its your fault if they join the enemy and tell them your secrets.

Hope this cleared up some BC battles over who back stabbed, and all that. Please, if i did not cover a big topic about back stabbing, comment below, and i'll add it in.

I disagree with all of this

The definition of backstab depends on the situation and which definition suits my benefit the most to use.

The definition of backstab depends on the situation and which definition suits my benefit the most to use.

I didn't specify each and every type of back stabs, but you saying the part of which definition suits you better, just sounds like 90% of the community here calling back stab over anything, because your stuck being allies with some one you want to kill.

As for you seth, i have to agree, not many will agree as to the definition of a back stab, thats why i'm trying to just clarify things in what i would call, a back stab. and for the most part, it is an opinion. its how i would describe a back stab, and what does not count as a back stab.

I didn't specify each and every type of back stabs, but you saying the part of which definition suits you better, just sounds like 90% of the community here calling back stab over anything, because your stuck being allies with some one you want to kill.

First of all I would never get stuck being allies with someone I want to kill. Diplomacy is what I do and I try to be good at what I do. There is always a loop hole you just have to look.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum